Saying that you're against Environmental Protection is like saying you're against clean water and air- almost as if it's a strange denial that you, and everything else, depends on the Earth to live.To me, clean water and air are a priority of the highest degree because they sustain life. Putting any priority in front of that (I hear economic reasons a lot) seems overwhelmingly selfish, materialistic, naive, and just flat-out stupid. If we run out of money, we still have water and air to keep us alive. If we run out of clean water and air, we can't drink and breathe our worthless money.I'd like to hear some Con positions regarding this topic. I like to think I'm oversimplifying this and people aren't really that stupid. I assume that if you are Con on this, you disagree on the degree to which environmental protection should be implemented. So let's hear it.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

There are diminishing returns from trying to keep the air more cleaner and water cleaner.

Right now, the air and water is cleaner then it ever was. I don't think there are major concerns right now, since we are healthier then we were ever before, and most health problems are attributed to aging, lack of exercise, and drug use, not lack of clean air or water.

I don't know what the "optimal" level is for cleanliness, but you clearly can't send it to infinity since at some point you'd have to take resources from education, healthcare, agricultural and so forth which I'm sure you'd be against.

Actually, being against environmental protection in some cases is a matter of properly weighing the pros and cons. Recently, the US and Canada have been trying to negotiate a deal on the Keystone XL pipeline, which happens to run through a large aquifer in the Midwest. Because the Obama Administration is dragging its feet on getting the pipeline approved by asking for a reroute and additional environmental impact reviews, Canada is thinking about shipping their oil to China instead.

As a result, the US loses out on job opportunities, lower energy prices, and economic growth. And as Kermit said, we already have very clean air and water, meanwhile gas prices are crippling consumers. This is a case where environmental concerns need to be set aside for economic priorities, and there are many other similar cases.

Ory, if you want to understand the types of arguments most people on here will use against you you're better off reading this article first. http://search.ebscohost.com...

Market-based environmentalism and the free market

Authors: Cordato, Roy E

Source:Independent Review; Winter97, Vol. 1 Issue 3, p371, 16p.

Abstract: Criticizes the arguments advanced for market-based environmentalism. Impossibility of efficient central planning; Subjective nature of costs and benefits; Failure concerning environmental problems; Conflicts over the use of property; Institutional arrangements; Use of a public waterway.

-----------

Some of his main points regard the distinction between humanism and environmentalism, the former putting humans primary and the latter putting the environment before humans.

Also, he makes the assertion that there is a trend of market based environmentalism (MBE) which is itself dependent upon the philosophy that the market holds value in it's ability to be manipulated. He emphasizes valuing the market for its own ability to work without intervention.

He proposes that "market failure" is a misnomer, and it is actually our failure to properly assign property rights that is the failure behind such phenomenon.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 12/10/2011 12:02:38 AM, mongoose wrote:No polution is an extremely stupid goal. You'd have to kill everybody to stop them from emitting carbon dioxide.

obviously, we'd define ourselves out of necessarily being pollutants when speaking in terms of what would be best for our survival... and so thus i think your killing everybody in the name of no pollution idea is what's extremely stupid.

more sensibly we could all just be green hippy communists living on nothing but coconuts and strawberries and things like that, fermented apples and weed, heating ourselves by huddling together like penguins and having mass orgies, washing ourselves in rivers and that sorta thing... a huge tribe! with no need or want for what we'd currently call industry and all its fog. i mean your average tribes person pollutes a whole lot less than your average civilised person, right? and they get along grand, are happy as they are, right?

but then i bet you think that's a stupid goal too? paradise? and if enough people think it's stupid, it's stupid i suppose... or considering how it's not so bad yet and how i'll probably be dead before it is anyway... i'm with you! would you look at that...

At 12/9/2011 6:07:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:There are diminishing returns from trying to keep the air more cleaner and water cleaner.

Right now, the air and water is cleaner then it ever was. I don't think there are major concerns right now, since we are healthier then we were ever before, and most health problems are attributed to aging, lack of exercise, and drug use, not lack of clean air or water.

sources? the air is cleaner now than when we weren't pumping industrial waste into it 24/7? how does that work? and just because your water goes through treatment before it gets to you doesn't mean that water in general is cleaner... is that's what's got you thinking this? i wouldn't say it is. again, industrial waste.

I don't know what the "optimal" level is for cleanliness, but you clearly can't send it to infinity since at some point you'd have to take resources from education, healthcare, agricultural and so forth which I'm sure you'd be against.

The air and water are cleaner than at any time in the last 250 years. How clean is clean enough? A thought, If you have mold in your bathroom, drink bottled water or use disposable diapers, you contribute more to pollution than you claim to fix with recycled AL or the EPA.

eh i suppose since we've been pumping waste into the world would be a more sensible position to take kermit to be holding... still, where'd our current cleanliness come from if not from people caring... it just happened? hardly. and it's obviously wanted.

I am for personal environmental protection: like you choose to do it or notBut a goverment mandate is bad due to the fact it hurts business. But a no liter law in my opinion is the only environmental law I am for. Humans don't even make global warming, unlike common belief. In the 1970s carbon emissions increased yet the temperatures fell. So historically that argument doesn't work. But anyway, I am against the co2 regulations and the coal regulations, the new regulations son the smog actually are predicted to kill 25% of that market. So personal protection=proGovernment mandate other than liter=con.

At 12/9/2011 6:07:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:There are diminishing returns from trying to keep the air more cleaner and water cleaner.

Right now, the air and water is cleaner then it ever was. I don't think there are major concerns right now, since we are healthier then we were ever before, and most health problems are attributed to aging, lack of exercise, and drug use, not lack of clean air or water.

sources? the air is cleaner now than when we weren't pumping industrial waste into it 24/7? how does that work? and just because your water goes through treatment before it gets to you doesn't mean that water in general is cleaner... is that's what's got you thinking this? i wouldn't say it is. again, industrial waste.

I don't know what the "optimal" level is for cleanliness, but you clearly can't send it to infinity since at some point you'd have to take resources from education, healthcare, agricultural and so forth which I'm sure you'd be against.

You can't live on water or air, regardless, some state intervention (especially courts holding people liable for damages) to reduce water or air pollution can be codified as protection of private property-- people's lungs.

Protection of an abstract "environment" adds nothing to this except things like the endangered species act, i.e., attempts to hold back the tides of evolution

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

1st off- I heard the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation mentioned on here. I don't honestly see the value in this assessment and it is the very reason I don't understand the general con position on environmental protection. Obviously the life-killing aspects of pollution are a higher priority than the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation. As I said, if we lose our jobs, we still have air to breathe and water to drink. If we lose our air and water, we can't breathe and drink our worthless money. Life is a higher priority than jobs. How is it not?

So, I see a lot of posts mentioning private property- the general rule seems to be that people don't have the right to violate private property by polluting and I assume also that people have a right to pollute on their own property? Yes?

The problem with this idea to me is that, yes, we respect that private property exists. In reality, however, private property does not exist. We all are a part of the Earth and there are no real lines which can be drawn in the air and water between one person's property and anothers. If you dump garbage onto your private property, the air and water will take it to other places. If you pollute the air- you pollute everybodys air. The pollution will not respect private property by staying above the square of land you call your own. Nobody owns air. If you pollute the water- you pollute everybodys water. Nobody owns the water (although people try and usually fail). We have mountains of evidence that our carelessness as humans (i.e. pollution) causes adverse effects for plants, wildlife, air, and water and thus- us.

Knowing all this, I don't see how pollution cannot be looked upon as a crime against life in general. Just because pollution is "abstract" does not mean it isn't wrong and shouldn't be regulated and punished. Polluting and causing disease/extinction/cancer/diminishing of resources, etc. in a Rube Goldberg fashion doesn't mean it didn't happen and we should look the other way.

Littering is to corporate pollutionasRobbery is to white-collar crime.

One is on a larger scale and also more abstract and sometimes difficult to measure- but in reality, they are both the same thing and should be punished.

So two new questions I have, if you all would be so willing- how can we invoke private property in a debate about something which, inherently, affects us all? Isn't pollution a peculiar type of thing which can't be explained or rationalized in the way we talk about other crimes?

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 12/10/2011 4:39:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Just because something is natural doesn't neccesarily mean it is good.

Mother earth is dead.

Mother Earth is dead.

Greyparrot: the Nietzsche of environmentalism.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 12/10/2011 4:31:40 PM, Oryus wrote:1st off- I heard the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation mentioned on here. I don't honestly see the value in this assessment and it is the very reason I don't understand the general con position on environmental protection. Obviously the life-killing aspects of pollution are a higher priority than the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation. As I said, if we lose our jobs, we still have air to breathe and water to drink. If we lose our air and water, we can't breathe and drink our worthless money. Life is a higher priority than jobs. How is it not?

So, I see a lot of posts mentioning private property- the general rule seems to be that people don't have the right to violate private property by polluting and I assume also that people have a right to pollute on their own property? Yes?

The problem with this idea to me is that, yes, we respect that private property exists. In reality, however, private property does not exist. We all are a part of the Earth and there are no real lines which can be drawn in the air and water between one person's property and anothers. If you dump garbage onto your private property, the air and water will take it to other places. If you pollute the air- you pollute everybodys air. The pollution will not respect private property by staying above the square of land you call your own. Nobody owns air. If you pollute the water- you pollute everybodys water. Nobody owns the water (although people try and usually fail). We have mountains of evidence that our carelessness as humans (i.e. pollution) causes adverse effects for plants, wildlife, air, and water and thus- us.

Knowing all this, I don't see how pollution cannot be looked upon as a crime against life in general. Just because pollution is "abstract" does not mean it isn't wrong and shouldn't be regulated and punished. Polluting and causing disease/extinction/cancer/diminishing of resources, etc. in a Rube Goldberg fashion doesn't mean it didn't happen and we should look the other way.

Littering is to corporate pollutionasRobbery is to white-collar crime.

One is on a larger scale and also more abstract and sometimes difficult to measure- but in reality, they are both the same thing and should be punished.

So two new questions I have, if you all would be so willing- how can we invoke private property in a debate about something which, inherently, affects us all? Isn't pollution a peculiar type of thing which can't be explained or rationalized in the way we talk about other crimes?

The role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people. The government protects the entire community, not just the minority, or majority. Everyone has equal protection.

If the government violates the rights of the people, even if it is just a minority, than the government has become corrupt and perverted.

If the government extends their power further than the protection of the people's life, liberty, and property, than that government has become perverted, and corrupt.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 12/10/2011 3:15:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:You can't live on water or air, regardless, some state intervention (especially courts holding people liable for damages) to reduce water or air pollution can be codified as protection of private property-- people's lungs.

Protection of an abstract "environment" adds nothing to this except things like the endangered species act, i.e., attempts to hold back the tides of evolution

That's gonna be tough since everyone contributes to pollution, including the hypothetical victim here. Unless a company is dumping chemical waste directly into your backyard pool, I don't understand how that could be an effective strategy.

At 12/10/2011 4:31:40 PM, Oryus wrote:1st off- I heard the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation mentioned on here. I don't honestly see the value in this assessment and it is the very reason I don't understand the general con position on environmental protection. Obviously the life-killing aspects of pollution are a higher priority than the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation. As I said, if we lose our jobs, we still have air to breathe and water to drink. If we lose our air and water, we can't breathe and drink our worthless money. Life is a higher priority than jobs. How is it not?

This is a false dichotomy. You're assuming there's only two choices here, being life or a job. In reality, numerous environmental regulations could be scrapped, and nobody will die, but the job market will improve. The probability of outcomes is influencing people's views here. Also, keep in mind that a healthy economy makes for a healthy lifestyle - rich nations that pollute the environment have healthier citizens than poor ones that aren't polluting very much.

So, I see a lot of posts mentioning private property- the general rule seems to be that people don't have the right to violate private property by polluting and I assume also that people have a right to pollute on their own property? Yes?

The problem with this idea to me is that, yes, we respect that private property exists. In reality, however, private property does not exist. We all are a part of the Earth and there are no real lines which can be drawn in the air and water between one person's property and anothers. If you dump garbage onto your private property, the air and water will take it to other places. If you pollute the air- you pollute everybodys air. The pollution will not respect private property by staying above the square of land you call your own. Nobody owns air. If you pollute the water- you pollute everybodys water. Nobody owns the water (although people try and usually fail). We have mountains of evidence that our carelessness as humans (i.e. pollution) causes adverse effects for plants, wildlife, air, and water and thus- us.

Knowing all this, I don't see how pollution cannot be looked upon as a crime against life in general. Just because pollution is "abstract" does not mean it isn't wrong and shouldn't be regulated and punished. Polluting and causing disease/extinction/cancer/diminishing of resources, etc. in a Rube Goldberg fashion doesn't mean it didn't happen and we should look the other way.

It doesn't matter if it's subjective, using the concept of property helps humans to survive by acting as a mechanism for efficiently allocating resources, which makes everyone wealthier and healthier.

Littering is to corporate pollutionasRobbery is to white-collar crime.

One is on a larger scale and also more abstract and sometimes difficult to measure- but in reality, they are both the same thing and should be punished.

When you fart, you cause global warming. Should you be punished because it's "the same thing" as dumping toxic waste into a widely used aquifer?

So two new questions I have, if you all would be so willing- how can we invoke private property in a debate about something which, inherently, affects us all? Isn't pollution a peculiar type of thing which can't be explained or rationalized in the way we talk about other crimes?

I don't see why pollution should be treated differently? The externalities of crime in general are far-reaching as well. A murderer might kill someone who was about to invent a cure for cancer, or some other sort of butterfly effect kind of thing. Pollution affects everyone in some way, but that doesn't make it unique.

At 12/10/2011 3:15:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:You can't live on water or air, regardless, some state intervention (especially courts holding people liable for damages) to reduce water or air pollution can be codified as protection of private property-- people's lungs.

Protection of an abstract "environment" adds nothing to this except things like the endangered species act, i.e., attempts to hold back the tides of evolution

That's gonna be tough since everyone contributes to pollution, including the hypothetical victim here.

It's a GOOD THING that it's tough. If there is pollution that everyone does, OBVIOUSLY that pollution shouldn't be punishable, only pollution that only some people do is even plausible as worthy as punishment.

In a civilized society, it is tough for government to make the case. The only alternative is everyone is guilty and hence whether you're in jail depends on whether you have buddies in government.

Obviously the life-killing aspects of pollution are a higher priority than the job-killing aspects of environmental regulation. As I said, if we lose our jobs, we still have air to breathe and water to drink. If we lose our air and water, we can't breathe and drink our worthless money.

We are not at serious risk of "losing our air and water." We are only at risk of a marginal, survivable reduction in its quality, as opposed to a less survivable reduction in the quality of our economy, which is necessary both for quality of life and to grow food, medicine, etc.

In reality, however, private property does not exist. We all are a part of the Earth and there are no real lines which can be drawn in the air and water between one person's property and anothers. If you dump garbage onto your private property, the air and water will take it to other places.

The premise is vague and does not lead to the conclusion. Whereas the conclusion "private property does not exist," once used as a premise, leads to you having no grounds to complain about getting killed anyway.

And no, we are not "all a part of the earth." If we were, jumping, flight, and space travel would be impossible.

If you pollute the air- you pollute everybodys air.

And either pollute private lungs or do not.

If you pollute the water- you pollute everybodys water. Nobody owns the water

Many people own some water, there is no such thing as "The water."

We have mountains of evidence that our carelessness as humans (i.e. pollution) causes adverse effects for plants, wildlife, air, and water and thus- us.

Vague and does not lead to the conclusion.

Knowing all this, I don't see how pollution cannot be looked upon as a crime against life in general.

If you believe it is, then die, because the alternative to pollution is death.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.